The Minority World Getting More Exclusive...

The UN Population Fund knows a little bit about humans. This week they released their annual State of the World Population report. You should read it.

I think First World, Third World, Developing and Developed Countries are unfortunate terms. The end of the Cold War made the first two obsolete. The last two are overly economistic. So, I prefer Minority and Majority World in an intentionally economistic context to describe the rich and powerful [those of us in the OECD oases of economic health] minority of humans versus the impoverished majority.

One of the most disturbing elements is in a table on page 90, "Democratic and Social Indicators."

6.62 billion: world population 2007
9.08 billion: world population 2050 [projected, duh]
1.22 billion: more developed regions 2007
1.24 billion: more developed regions 2050 [projected]

This is remarkable. As the population is expected to increase by almost 50% in the next 43 years, the proportion expected to live in the wealth of the current minority world is expected to increase by just over 1%.

Now, the minority world makes up about 18.4%. It is expected to be only 13.8%. So much for having much faith in the world leading to more economic equality if things continue the way they are!

It's online here as a .pdf, "Unleashing the Potential of Urban Growth":
http://www.unfpa.org/swp/

A multimedia online or downloadable introductory piece is here:
http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2007/multimedia/index.html

There is also a supplementary piece on the duality of Vancouver's urban climate, focusing on the downtown eastside:
"Vancouver: Prosperity and poverty make for uneasy bedfellows in world’s most ‘liveable’ city"
http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2007/presskit/docs/vancouver_feature_eng.doc

And some work on "Top Misconceptions about Urban Growth":
http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2007/presskit/docs/misconceptions.doc

In all, the Press Kit & Resources section has good supplementary work:
http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2007/presskit/index.htm

I've Decided to Become a Paris Hilton Fan, So Should You!

The Old, Debauched Paris:

The New, Squeaky Clean, Adorable Paris:

I'm sold!

It is clear to me that Paris Hilton has embraced a tone of contrition. She has embarked on life after incarceration with a brand new image of humility and a sparkling new girl next door haircut.

Perhaps she is concerned that it is time to grow up and leave her partying ways behind her. She was rebellious and disrespectful of her adoring public. She is "serious about leaving her famously party-loving past behind."

Perhaps jail was her equivalent of Drew Barrymore flashing her boobs at Letterman, but now Paris seeks the kind of respectability and success that Drew now knows.

In the end, you be the judge. Media has nurtured a month-long boner over her tribulations. It lives to create an international obsession to milk ad dollars with a compliant public.

Paris is doing her job. She is keeping the "news"[sic] industry/business rolling right along.

God bless Paris Hilton.

Harper: Canada to Leave Afghanistan in 2009...You Missed it, Right?

Well, after a weekend to thoroughly digest Prime Sinister Harper's speech to mark the end of Canada's sad and waning 39th parliament, I feel moved to grumble about something he didn't bother to mention formally and officially.

I was going to talk about how he frames taxation as slavery from which we need emancipation, despite all the rich social, educational and health services we receive and largely take for granted: "Largely as a result of our tax reductions in budget 2006, tax freedom day arrived Wednesday, four days earlier than last year."

Instead I want to comment on what he said in a rare moment when he stooped to speak to the press. So many emails from the PMO describe Harper's upcoming schedule. "Photo op only" has become scripture.

So instead of in a formal political speech to end the session of parliament, Harper, on a Friday at the end of the week's new cycle, mutters that Canada will leave Afghanistan in 2009.

Huh? I kid you not:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who once insisted that Canadian troops will stay in Afghanistan until the job is done, now says the military mission will end in February, 2009, unless the opposition agrees it should be extended.

The acceptance that the mission's lifespan may be limited comes as the Prime Minister faces growing opposition to Canada's combat role in the Afghan south - a decline in support that has been particularly pronounced in Quebec.

"This mission will end in February, 2009," Mr. Harper said yesterday at a rare House of Commons news conference held to mark the end of the spring sitting.

Isn't this major news? The most significant Canadian military mission in decades, the most controversial episode of Canadian imperialism will end because Harper said quietly that we'll stay past 2009 only if all parties in parliament agree.

The NDP is opposed to our presence. Unless they see the light of imperialism in the next dozen or so months, our support for our troops will be supporting them home.

The Globe and Mail covered it on Saturday. Thanks.

But the volitional decision to end our occupation of Afghanistan and cease our imperial agenda there was not plastered all over the front pages of the Sunday and Monday morning papers.

This is a major victory for sanity in Canada. It is also a major reversal of Harper's militarism in the face of growing national opposition to the stupidity of what we have been trying to convince ourselves we could do there.

And Harper's embarrassment over his decision to radically change his entire war prime minister image made him squeak it out on a Friday afternoon in Ottawa in front of reporters, for whom he holds shocking and tremendous disdain.

Thank God for Harper that they haven't skewered him for it. Lucky man.

Maybe Harper's American Idol speech ending "God Bless Canada" has returned to save him from having to blush over changing his over-inflated sense of his military legacy.

The poor fool.

Who Wants To Be An Amerikan?

There is a fantastic short film by the Vancouver Film School called “Who Wants to Be an Amerikan?”



Someone commented thusly:

“Ive been following this video since it first went on YouTube, and every time i see someone say something along the lines of "this video attack/ makes fun of/ is against the united states" someone asks "why do you think that?". funny thing is, nobody ever responds. im very curious how anyone thinks this attacks america could someone give me a real answer?”

I think it attacks America because it tells the truth that America[tm] is a marketing concept. Disneyland, the Cosby Show, American Idol. The idea of mom, apple pie and lemonade. It's surreal, not real. It also minimizes what a lot of Americans think America is: An awesome place. But it is really a myth covering a reality of 2 centuries of military and economic imperialism, domestic racism, xenophobia, soft fascism, poverty and shattered dreams.

The whole totalitarian game show thing is a separate commentary, I think, on totalitarianism that is somehow reaffirmed by the comment on the postcard about people being more important than places. And America is a place where his father left his family and the son was willing to leave his mother.

And I guess this does relate to America in that lots of Americans love America though they cannot explain why in the face of 40 million without health care, institutionalized racism and segregation still in practice, rampant poverty in the face of obscene wealth and millions who don't know the names of their neighbours in their cookie cutter suburbs.

It's a movie that tells truths that are uncomfortable for many Americans to think, let alone understand.

So many cannot say why it attacks America because they aren't stepping back to look at how their country looks to others outside and inside the nation.

And as a Canadian, I think even without carrying a myth like America, we carry our own myths of superiority to America, but we suffer from similar isolation as well as similar neglect of others' true material, social, emotional and psychological needs.

This is a wonderful film. Challenging, and beautiful.